I used to think exactly like you. If there was an internet at that time, I would have posted like you. But no more ...

You see, both my wife and I, after decades of hard work and paying taxes (I was in mangement, and she was a nurse), came down with a legal disability in the same year. I developed a seizure disorder in which I would have 50-70 seizures per day. My wife is entitled to her privacy, in this forum.

And so, with no income between us, we took every bit of assistance we could get, including food stamps. Friends, family, and church helped, but that only goes so far. The government programs allowed us to live independently.

Now, we're working to get back our health and our lives, and there's hope over the horizon (probably early next year).

The whole time I've been "on the dole", I maintained my conservative values and principles. I agree that there's questions about the "constitutionality" of entitlement programs. I agree that there's rampant abuse and corruption in the system. I don't agree that it's absurd. And if it was "just ended", my wife and I BOTH would likely have died.

Instead of dying, however, we stand a good chance of becoming taxpayers again, in the very near future. It was these programs that saved us, and it's our determination to get ahead in life that will get us off of the programs.

You should know that the disenfranchisement of me WOULD be un-Constitutional. And NO ONE the H*** is going to tell me what to eat.

I don't find these programs to be unconstitutional, but I would prefer that the federal government not be involved in it at all and the states themselves determine the benefit levels that will be provided.

I have no problem with some people getting some assistance. But I would firmly support the eligible food stuffs being very restricted in scope.

I sympathize with your situation, but I think its clouded your judgement, IMHO.

Do you really think that those on government assistance should be indulging in luxurious foodstuffs? Do you also think those who are on heating assistance, for example, should leave their windows open since they are no longer paying for it?

Government benefits are charity. Forced charity, but charity nonetheless. If you're on charity, you ought to have the courtesy to spend that money frugally, even moreso than if it was your own.

If it becomes obvious (as it has been for years) that many are spending their benefits in ways that are considered wasteful, or for items that were not indended, than the government certainly should be placing restrictions on it. After all, as a recipient, its not your money, its everyone else's.

You should know that the disenfranchisement of me WOULD be un-Constitutional. And NO ONE the H*** is going to tell me what to eat. The as long as people who feel like don't stick their hands into my pockets to fund their freedom of food, there should be no trouble with disenfranchisement or food fights.

Government needs to get out of the charity business and let the private sector handle it. Americans are the most generous people in the world. There is no reason (or constitutional authoriy) to forcibly extract money from citizens to fund a wasteful, inefficent, fraud-riddled government welfare machine. I certainly would contribute more to private charities if less of my paycheck was being vacuumed up by the government.

Sounds an awful lot like "Give me your money, and don't you dare question how I spend it!"

That my not be your intention, but in essence that's what your saying.

One of the multitude of problems with the government controlled welfare system is just this issue. If I give charity to someone personally, and then see him blowing it on cigarettes and junk food, I'm free not to give to him again. (This actually happened to me once.) When the government does it, I have to give no matter what they do.

So are you saying there are to be no restrictions on how you spend "your" money on food. Really? What about liquor? Cigarettes? That OK?

51 posted on 12/19/2003 10:00:00 AM PST by Jotmo
("Voon", said the mattress.)

Except you aren't living independently --- but that's one of the big flaws in the system --- you might have worked many years and paid in ---- but now you're living on the same programs as the loafers who never have worked, never intend to work are --- and they are able-bodied. There should be insurance plans that cover long-term disability but the able bodied should be required to work for a living.